Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.(MD).Nos.14793 of 2018, 15460, 22593 of 2019, 830 and 834 of 2021 “The Commissioner may, after holding such inquiry as he may consider it necessary and expedient, in the interest of such religious institution, by order, appoint an Executive Officer for such religious institution, for such period or periods as may be specified by the Commissioner in the order not exceeding a period of five years at a time” Even though the Executive Officer and the Fit person was appointed prior to the said Rule, after the said Rule was enacted the respondents ought to have cancelled the said appointment after the lapse of five years from the date of the said Rules, but the respondents have not done so. Therefore when the provisions allow to appoint Executive Officers / Fit Person for a limited period, then appointing the Fit Persons / Executive Officers perpetually would be against the provisions of law. The Courts have repeatedly held the Executive Officer or Fit Person can be appointed only for a period of five years and Executive Officer or Fit Person cannot replace Trustees or cannot take over the powers of Trustee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763 had held as under:

50. Thus, the appeals are allowed. Judgments/orders impugned are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.” The aforesaid judgment is followed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20349 of 2023, W.P.(MD)No.15234 of 2023 and W.P.(MD)No. 9594 of 2014. This Court in W.P.(MD)No.19081 of 2023 has held that even in the scheme framed for administration of temples and endowments the Executive Officers cannot be appointed, since Executive Officers cannot be appointed beyond five years. Therefore the appointment of the Executive Officer and Fit Person beyond five years is illegal and in the present case the both the Executive Officer and Fit Person are administrating the temple for the past 27 years and the same is illegal and totally against the provisions of law Amendment Act 1996 and against the judgment rendered in Dr.Subramanian Swamy’s case referred supra. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.(MD).Nos.14793 of 2018, 15460, 22593 of 2019, 830 and 834 of 2021 Hence they cannot be allowed to continue in the administration of the temple in question.

(56) Stringent rules on the conduct, character, interest and knowledge on both religious affairs as well as administrative abilities of the trustees, must be enacted to ensure that the right person is appointed to manage the religious affairs of the temples.

(57) Keeping in mind that the overall administration shall be with the HR&CE Department, the authorities shall supervise the affairs of the religious institutions ensuring that the HR&CE Act is strictly complying with by the trustees and taking necessary remedial steps for which they are paid an annual contribution as specified under Section 92.” Further the temple and endowments ought to be managed and administered by Trustees only. The HR&CE department is empowered to appoint Executive Officer only if there is mismanagement or allegation of misappropriation. And once the said allegation is set right then the management ought to be handed over to the trustees only as held in Dr.Subramanian Swamy’s case. The Executive Officer or the Fit Person cannot have perpetual power to manage and administer the temple or endowments. Further this power to appoint Executive https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.(MD).Nos.14793 of 2018, 15460, 22593 of 2019, 830 and 834 of 2021 Officer (when mismanagement or misappropriation) will not empower the HR&CE Department to replace Executive Officer in the place of Trustees. More so, it cannot reduce the power of the Trustees and grant such power to Executive Officer. Therefore the Executive Officers and the Fit Person cannot be allowed to continue the administration.